laurel mountain news
February 15, 2007
26 posts
12 users
8k+ views
heard a bunch of new rumors of a pending sale of LM assets??
best bet seems to be a western area operator from Montanna.
Final decisions will be with the state dcnr who have the lease of the area and any new operator must make a new deal with them
imp
Rumors fly around and around. Let's hope that a good one lands. Is the Montana group the right one?
As for the DCNR, yep, Laurel is a State Park and they are the keeper of the covenant. They won't approve if any group is not adequately capitalize and does not understand the restrictions on overnight lodging and full time summer use.
Quote:
....and does not understand the restrictions on overnight lodging and full time summer use.
LMC, just curious. What restriction is there on full time summer use?
Is it possible, if rumor true, that a group buying the "assets" could be buying them to move them elsewhere, as Camelback did eventually at the Rappahannock Ski Area in Virginia?
Hope not?!!!
The Colonel
the assets that the bank has for sale are basicly the lodge,above ground snowmaking, three cats and the quad chair. New owner of these can do what they want with them including tearing down and removing the lodge and chair.
the state wants the place to run so the restrictions placed by the actual landowner are somewhat negotabile but include no summer activities, it was given for winter sports only.
packaged with the ski area is Laurel mOuntain village a developement with a sordid history but some great potential.
imp
From my 2 conversations with Tyson Cook of Somerset Trust, the ski area assets and the land in Laurel Mountain Village are a package deal. I can't imagine someone would buy the ski area assets, move or sell them, and then decide to develop the real estate without the ski area. But what do I know.
there was a Montana group interested in HV last year. Wonder if it is the same group?
good chance as they have roots in HV if it is who it is reported to be
imp
Quote:
Quote:
....and does not understand the restrictions on overnight lodging and full time summer use.
LMC, just curious. What restriction is there on full time
summer use?
What imp said:
Quote:
the state wants the place to run so the restrictions placed by the actual landowner are somewhat negotabile but include no summer activities, it was given for winter sports only.
The 1964 covenant gives the ski area to the DCNR for winter recreation only. No summer activities are stipulated but have occurred on a case by case basis. No overnight lodging developed within the ski area boundary.
Hey imp, what year is your ride?
Quote:
Rumors fly around and around. Let's hope that a good one lands. Is the Montana group the right one?
Exactly. I don't know how many more of the proverbial nine lives Laurel Mountain has left. It's time to finally get it right.
the imp was a 1963 LMC
imp
still runs in the woods
It seems odd to me that DCNR would place ANY restrictions on a resort operation at LM. Keep in mind that a significant portion of BK ski area is located on BK State Park land and PA DCNR has been VERY flexible in allowing the ski area concessionaire to conduct a wide range of development activities. In fact, I have never known of a single case where DCNR said "no" to a development/land-clearing idea at BK (even though objections/questions were often raised by various groups and entities including the National Park Service). So, I have to wonder why LM would be any different. Seriously, someone should ask DCNR why they are being stringent on various restrictions at LM when just the opposite has occurred at nearly BK. An interesting link:
http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2445211540058355965pgIHYX
MM,
We had hoped you were off the bash BK bandwagon; it has been some time since you posted a tirade on the subject.
Anyway, I think, from my reading this forum that the problem of full year round utilization of the LM site has something to do with the wishes of the person(s) who donated the land or access to the land to the state for a park. I could be wrong but I am sure other LM posters will set the record straight.
I also think that posing pictures of trail and other erosion that occurred 1-3 years ago is somewhat irresponsible unless more recent pictures show that nothing has been done to fix or mitigate the problem.
My two cents worth!
The Colonel
Colonel,
Note: The link is to a picture that was taken Nov. 16, 2006.
DCNR does not own the land they have a 99 year lease agreement with the heirs to the actual owner. The terms of the lease called the covanant are what prohibit summer usage. .
The state park people at Linn run who are responsible for Laurel have done a great job within their limited powers to do actual physical things on the hill.
hopefully a new and consistant leasee will be able to have the covanant updated.
imp
Thanks for the info on lease aspect of LM. I had always presumed that DCNR actually owned the land in question. A long-term lease with a covenant complicates things a bit. In the case of BK, the US Air Force originally owned the land on the summit, which, today includes part of the ski slopes, and the land area where the snowmaking ponds and tubing park are located. When the Air Force left BK around 1960, the land was briefly held by the US Park Service, who deeded the land to PA for the purposes of preservation and recreation. Anyway, since PA actually owns some of the ski area land at BK (rather than leasing it) things are a lot simpler (in terms of how much leeway PA DCNR has) than the current situation at LM. As I've stated here before, I'm a huge fan of LM, so I'm really keeping my fingers crossed that a purchase deal will go through.
Quote:
It seems odd to me that DCNR would place ANY restrictions on a resort operation at LM. Keep in mind that a significant portion of BK ski area is located on BK State Park land and PA DCNR has been VERY flexible in allowing the ski area concessionaire to conduct a wide range of development activities. In fact, I have never known of a single case where DCNR said "no" to a development/land-clearing idea at BK (even though objections/questions were often raised by various groups and entities including the National Park Service). So, I have to wonder why LM would be any different. Seriously, someone should ask DCNR why they are being stringent on various restrictions at LM when just the opposite has occurred at nearly BK. An interesting link: http://sports.webshots.com/photo/2445211540058355965pgIHYX
Hi MM. I share your concerns about the erosion at BK. I skied more than a few of the newly gladded runs before they were official, especially a link off of Edgeset into the top of the Ditch.
I remember the first year East Wall was open. Extrovert was open, and relatively unbumped. East Wall, with exposed rock ledge, was scruffed but packed. I skied East Wall thinking that this wasn't so much a glade but more a wide trail with a few trees. I skied Extrovert once. My most recent trips were after the hurricanes and heavy rains. The terrain at BK has become very fragile and erosion control has to be upgraded.
Laurel is a State Park but the land is granted with covenants from the original land owner, the Rolling Rock Farms, to the State for the purpose of winter sports. Logging is implicitly prohibited. Any terrain improvement should meet with strict guideline established, in part, by looking at what happened to BK. Besides, I doubt that that type of wide open glading will ever be done at Laurel.
Opps, composed and posted before your previous reply.
Quote:
I skied East Wall thinking that this wasn't so much a glade but more a wide trail with a few trees.
so in other words, East wall meets the traditional definition of a glade "a clearing in a wooded area". In the olde dys of ski area design, a trail or slope would be cleared from edge to edge, while a glade or meadow would be relatively untouched... including leaving a stand of trees here and there. As time went on, skiiers modified the definition to actually refer to tree skiing.
In a sense, the name "Alpine Meadows Glade" was redundant to someone who would not know it referred to a forested area.
Can't see the forest through the treess......sskiing.
As general rule, Gladed ski slopes are created by leaving the large economically valuable trees standing while clearing out the underbrush and some of the smaller trees located underneath. The large trees (that are left in place) keep the ground shaded, which prevents (or slows) brush and saplings from growing back. Also, the large trees provide a nice wind-block.
Sooooo, any beta on snow conditions at Laurel after the storm?
Did ya'll get any raincrust over that way?
Canaan got an ugly coating from what I've been reading....
we have a total of about 20+" of snow at Laurel Mountain Village. We did get a kind of a crust, more hard snow not ice, it never did rain. We had small ice chunks coming down for about an hour, this compacted the top most layer of snow. On top of the crust there is about 8-10" of powder.
that sounds pretty decent.....
any worthwhile trail maps of Laurel floating around the intraweb ether?
thanks.
edit: found map info thru link on front page....
You can get one from the Laurel Mountain page on DCSki.
